Apparently they decided to shell away as much as they can beforehand though.

OOPS

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_gaza_doctor_s_grief;_ylt=Ajnbpz3v1JClY4jYs54VI4wDW7oF

 

I will be very glad to see the killing end but I hope the backlash against Israel is just beginning. Just because they stop killing innocent women and kids to take out Hamas fighters doesn't mean we should forget it in my opinion.

I think was is obscenely clear is that Israel attended that from the beginning. So fire as many shells and kill as many Palestinians as possible before George Bush left office. I also now suspect they took an extra toll on the Palestinians because Bush told Israel they could not bomb Iran.

 

In 1953 Iran had a constitutional monarchy. The Shah of Iran had more power than Queen Elizabeth, but he shared power with a democratically elected parliament. The Prime Minister of Iran was Mohammed Moseddeh. Moseddeh was a moderate Moslem, and a moderate socialist, and considerably more decent than any ruler of Iran since. He was overthrown in a coup organized by the CIA, and the Shah became an absolute monarch. Moseddeh was sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted to house arrest for life. He died in 1967.

The CIA did not help Saddam's Bathist Party come to power in Iraq, but when it did it gave the Bathist government lists of Iraqis who belonged to the Iraqi Communist Party.

During the war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980's the United States gave clandestine support to whichever side was losing in order to prolong the fighting.

To the best of my knowledge the United States has never supported the Saudi ruling family against a popular opposition movement.

 

The only way the Israelis provoked the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973 was by existing. They had every conceivable right to expand their borders after winning. The UN certainly did not protect them.

There is an obvious precedent for annexing the land of an aggressor after a victorious war. After World Wars I and II France and Poland annexed land of Germany.

 

Not according to my sources. From what I've read the CIA not only helped the Baath Party come to power they also specifically assisted Saddam Hussein in taking over the party.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/for-whom-bell-tolls-top-ten-ways-us.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

In addition there is no way to start a popular opposition movement in Saudi Arabia. And notice how the US and people like yourself tend to demonize many Islamic nations but give Saudi Arabia a free pass, even though the are equally is not more repressive then Iran or the Palestinians.

Nope. I put up a good source that clearly shows how Israeli government officials planned to provoke the wars and that their intent was to actually try and expand their borders.

 

Those countries were not specifically forbidden by the UN mandate that created them from expanding their borders through war. Israel was.

 

I'll pick one...1967. Nobody attacked Israel. Israel launched a "pre-emptive" (i.e. unprovoked) attack. All of this followed the expulsion by Egypt of a UN peacekeeping force from the Sinai, which you might view as provocation, but the Sinai was Egyptian terrotory which had been invaded by Israel (along with its western allies) in 1957 -- in yet another act of aggression.

 

Thank you Kimiko. You know, you're almost as good at giving history as you are at giving head.

 

Thanks, sweetie...but sadly for my career, I don't do ANYTHING as well as I give head.

 

Thank God they did. Pre-emptive? Unprovoked? nice play on words K. Thank you for not being in government or holding any power to any degree. The reason they launched the attack was because the Egyptians had mounted obscene forces right on the border. Justification when you think the other nations surrounding them were ready to attack as well. Israel destroyed all of them and rightly so. Righteousness delivered ad naseum. Act of aggression? In whose eyes, yours? again laughable. Thank You.

 

What Led To The Six Day War?

 

I wonder what is going on in Barack Obamas head as he takes that long train ride?
Will he take a hard line with Israel? I doubt it.

As my old Nanna used to say "Follow the money, my lad!".
He may have been put there by black voters, but it's Jewish dollars that bank-rolled him.
Sanctions? A cut in aid? Nope, I'm afraid not. A slap on the wrist and a wagging finger, that's the best we can hope for.

We hear the words 'war-crimes' being used in the British press and I'm afraid I have to agree. The deliberate targeting of UN installations and places of shelter for the innocent is abominable and this done by 'god's chosen people'?
"Thou shalt not kill", NOT 'except arabs, they're alright', NOT 'except in self defence', NOT 'only unbelievers''. "Thou shalt not kill FULL STOP!"

I see the fact that Israel has suddenly stopped their actions as Obama comes to power, that seems little too conveniant also.
Do they think three days is enough for their actions to be forgotten?
Do they think the UN will forget so easily?

Now the British are offering to patrol the Egypt/Israel border in an attempt to stop weapons being smuggled in. A foreign army, without prior knowledge of the situation and lay of the land is supposed to out-do Iraeli/Egyptian Troops in this matter?
Surely this kind of offer is showing acceptance that Israel was justified in it's actions?
Britain did some terrible things in Northern Ireland, but they never shelled innocent civilians! Israel could never have been justified in it's actions.

That's two of the US's smaller allies flexing their muscles recently, Israel and Georgia, who's next?

 

What Led To The Six Day War?

 

iI wonder what is going on in Barack Obamas head as he takes that long train ride?
Will he take a hard line with Israel? I doubt it.

As my old Nanna used to say "Follow the money, my lad!".
He may have been put there by black voters, but it's Jewish dollars that bank-rolled him.
Sanctions? A cut in aid? Nope, I'm afraid not. A slap on the wrist and a wagging finger, that's the best we can hope for.

We hear the words 'war-crimes' being used in the British press and I'm afraid I have to agree. The deliberate targeting of UN installations and places of shelter for the innocent is abominable and this done by 'god's chosen people'?
"Thou shalt not kill", NOT 'except arabs, they're alright', NOT 'except in self defence', NOT 'only unbelievers''. "Thou shalt not kill FULL STOP!"

I see the fact that Israel has suddenly stopped their actions as Obama comes to power, that seems little too conveniant also.
Do they think three days is enough for their actions to be forgotten?
Do they think the UN will forget so easily?

Now the British are offering to patrol the Egypt/Israel border in an attempt to stop weapons being smuggled in. A foreign army, without prior knowledge of the situation and lay of the land is supposed to out-do Iraeli/Egyptian Troops in this matter?
Surely this kind of offer is showing acceptance that Israel was justified in it's actions?
Britain did some terrible things in Northern Ireland, but they never shelled innocent civilians! Israel could never have been justified in it's actions.

That's two of the US's smaller allies flexing their muscles recently, Israel and Georgia, who's next?


Israel was and is still completely justified in their actions against Hamas or the Palestinians. War crimes? again too much! Do your parents coach you at dinnertime?

 

Yes, pre-emptive. Distant Lover said Israel had never done anything to provoke a war. I'd say launching an air strike constitutes provocation, wouldn't you?

But I'll say this for the Israelis -- they're very good at selling the idea that they themselves are the victims of aggression, whenever they attack their neighbors.

 

I just told you.

 

Nasser threatened to destroy Israel.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php

 

They are the victims Kimiko, I see nothing positive coming from the other side. oh just so you don't think such things, I am not Jewish.

 

In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State. Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:

* We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.

A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' goal to be:

* ... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.

 

Written entirely from the Israeli point of view. The point remains...Israel attacked first.